“It should be noted that a justifiable homicide is not criminal, since it is a killing which the law has either commanded or permitted: the actus in such a case is not legally punishable, and therefore we may perhaps say that it is an actus of killing which is not reus. As we shall see in most cases of justifiable homicide, the killing is intentional, and therefore the mental element of criminal responsibility is clearly present: but there is no crime committed since there is no actus reus.” [4]

“English lawyers once distinguished between ‘excusable’ homicide (e.g. accidental non-negligent killing) and ‘justifiable’ homicide (e.g. killing in self-defence or in the arrest of a felon) and different legal consequences once attached to these two forms of homicide. To the modern lawyer this distinction has no longer any legal importance: he would simply consider both kinds of homicide to be cases where some element, negative or positive, required in the full definition of criminal homicide (murder or manslaughter) was lacking. But the distinction between these two different ways in which actions may fail to constitute a criminal offence is still of great moral importance. Killing in self-defence is an exception to a general rule making killing punishable; it is admitted because the policy or aims which in general justify the punishment of killing (e.g. protection of human life) do not include cases such as this. In the case of ‘justification’ what is done is regarded as something which the law does not condemn, or even welcomes.” [5]

Terms pertaining toAssessing Whether or Nota Homicide is Justifiable:

homicide se defendendo – The killing of a human being in self-defense. [2]

retreat rule – unless at home or at work, a victim of assault generally has a duty to retreat instead of using deadly force, so long as there is a safe avenue of escape. — aka rule of retreat; duty to retreat; retreat to the wall.

homicidium ex justitia – Homicide in the administration of justice, or in the carrying out of a legal sentence. [1]

no-retreat rule – (1973) Criminal law. A doctrine in many states allowing the victim of a threat to use force, sometimes including lethal force, against an invader or attacker even if the victim could avoid the need for it by running away or otherwise retreating. * Some versions of the rule allow victims this privilege when in their homes; some allow it whenever a victim is threatened with an assault. [1]

Excerpt from People v. Ross, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1033,1044 (2007):

“California belongs to the majority of jurisdictions with a ‘[n]o [r]etreat [r]ule,’ under which the victim of an assault is under no obligation to ‘retreat to the wall’ before exercising the right of self-defense, but is entitled to ‘stand his ground.”’ [6]

stand-your-ground law – (2006) A statute providing that a potential victim of a crime need not retreat before responding with force in self-defense to a threat, even if flight is possible. * The stand-your-ground law immunizes the actor against civil suits and criminal charges when force was used justifiably in self-defense.

castle doctrine – (1892) Criminal law. An exception to the retreat rule allowing the use fo deadly force by a person who is protecting his or her home and its inhabitants from attack, especially from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily harm. — aka dwelling defense; defense of habitation. [1]

1. The doctrine that a person may use whatever force is required to defend his home and those in it. The principle derives its name from the maxim that “a man’s home is his castle.“ [3]

References:

Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use.